Road Traffic Code 2000

Commentary Paper No. 4

The slip lane rule and other rules relating to turning vehicles.

Synopsis

The rules relating to give way situations can best be described as a shemozzle.  The regulations look like they were drafted by a committee, lacking precision and consistency. 

 

Since Western Australia sacrifices the lives of more than a person every two days for the privilege of people to drive motor vehicles, one might think that the Road Traffic Regulations would be clear and easily understood.  Not so:  the regulations look like they have been drawn up by the janitor of the Crown Law Department and they will take decades to be sorted out by an army of overpaid lawyers.  Why not over-pay one good lawyer to write the regulations so that they can be clearly understood by an army of janitors without the necessity for any more lawyers?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prepared by Ted Leech LLB (Hons.), B. Comm

 

41 Woodbine Road

Pickering Brook   WA   6076

 

Telephone:   9293 8170

Email eleech@perthlaw.biz

 

23 August 2004


Road Traffic Code 2000

Commentary Paper No. 4

The Slip Lane Rule

Introduction

The Road Traffic Code 2000 contains numerous references to vehicles turning left using a slip lane.  The references are contradictory both in relation to giving way to vehicles and also pedestrians.

 

In this paper I intend to set out those regulations and arrive at conclusions as to what the rules are in particular circumstances.  I conclude that nothing short of a major re-write of these regulations will do.

 

The Relevant laws

“slip lane” is defined in Regulation 3:

   "slip lane" means an area of carriageway for vehicles turning left that is separated, at some point, from other parts of the road by some form of painted island or traffic island;

 

The following regulations bear upon the slip lane rule (not necessarily exclusive):

Regulations:          39(1)(b)(iii); 45; 46(3)(c); 47(c); 50(3)(b); 50(5); 52(1)(b); 52(3); 55(4); 55(4); 55(5); 55(6)(b)(ii); 56(5); 56(6)(a).

Discussion

Slip Lanes and other Vehicles

It is difficult to interpret the regulations touching this matter with any confidence because of poor drafting.  In fact it is my belief that what was intended to be the rule was not reflected in what has been written.  Because the Regulations have been written in such a sloppy and ambiguous way, nobody with the interest to actually do something about improving them has yet thought them through.  Many of the arguments brought by me in this paper are easily dismissed with a wave of the hand and saying “Ah no, it is obvious.  Just apply a little common sense”.  However, I have spent many years prosecuting in a jurisdiction which required full particulars of offences.  I am therefore used to identifying precisely what prohibition has been broken by what specific act.

 

My best guess is that it was the intention of the regulator that persons using slip lanes to turn left must give way to all vehicles using the carriageway they are entering except vehicles that have performed a U turn at the relevant intersection to get into that carriageway.  One would think there would be no difficulty with discerning something as ordinary and simple as a give way rule used thousands of time every day in Perth.

 

Regulation 39 is the first of the Regulations and reads (as far as is relevant):

39. Effect of a circular green signal or green arrow

(1) If a traffic-control signal facing a driver displays a circular green signal the driver may —

(a) … or

(b) turn right or turn left, if the driver —

(i) does not conflict or interfere with pedestrians crossing the roadway;

(ii) … and

(iii) … and, if turning right, gives way to any vehicle that has entered or is approaching the intersection from the opposite direction.

Modified penalty: 3 PU

 

 The question arises, “Is a vehicle that has approached from the opposite direction and is turning left using a slip lane into the same carriageway as the subject driver, a vehicle covered by sub regulation (iii)?  In other words, is the other vehicle classified as ‘has entered or is approaching the intersection from the opposite direction’?

 

In my opinion the answer to the questions is “Yes” in both cases.  In numerous other places in the Code, regulations refer to traffic approaching from the opposite direction and specifically exempt vehicles that are turning left using a slip lane.  The fact that they are exempted must mean that they would have been included were it not for the exemption.  Regulations that mention this exemption are Regulation 45(1); 47(c); 50(3)(b); 52(1)(b); 55(6)(b)(ii);.  Therefore, where the exemption is not specified, vehicles of that class are included within the class of vehicles approaching from the opposite direction.

 

Returning to Regulation 39, 39(1)(b)(iii) must require a driver turning right at traffic lights to give way to a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction and turning left using a slip lane.

 

In contrast, Regulation 45 purports to deal with giving way at intersections where traffic lights are erected.  Sub regulation 45(1) reads as follows:

(1) A driver who intends to turn, is turning or has turned, right at an intersection with traffic-control signals shall give way to any oncoming vehicle that is going straight ahead or turning left at the intersection (except a vehicle turning left using a slip lane).

 

This restates the position that a driver turning right must give way to ‘oncoming traffic’ (which I consider is synonymous with ‘traffic approach from the opposite direction’) but exempts oncoming traffic turning left using a slip lane from that rule. 

 

It is worth noting that the exemption means that the rule in that sub regulation does not apply to the exempted class; it does not impose an opposite rule.  It is silent about the obligations of the subject car vis a vis the car using the slip lane.  However, diagram 3 in that regulation suggests that the right turning vehicle does not have to give way to the vehicle using the slip lane contrary to the rule already set out in Regulation 39(b)(iii) which specifically requires the right turning vehicle to do so.

 

While Regulation 55(4) provides that vehicles turning left using a slip lane must give way to vehicles approaching from the right and to vehicles turning right at the intersection into the carriageway the subject driver is entering, that rule only applies where there are no traffic control signals, or give way signs etc. applying to the driver. 

 

It is debateable whether that rule applies when traffic lights are not operating but I do not intend to chase that rabbit to its burrow here.

 

There is no provision in these regulations that I can find, other than the one in Regulation 55 that requires a driver using a slip lane to give way to traffic on the carriageway he is entering.  In the 1975 Regulations the ‘give way to the right rule’ (Regulation 602) was subordinated to specified regulations but otherwise had global application which meant that in any case of legal vacuum (i.e. where there may have been no apparent rule) the give way to the right rule applied.  But the Road Traffic Code 2000 abandoned that concept and the ‘give way to the right rule’ is now contained within Regulation 55 and does not apply where there are other controls:

55 . Giving way at an intersection (except a T–intersection or roundabout)

(1) This regulation does not apply to a driver at a T-intersection or roundabout, or at an intersection controlled by traffic-control signals or with a "stop" sign, stop line, "give way" sign, or give way line that applies to that driver.

(2) If a driver at an intersection is going straight ahead, the driver shall give way to any vehicle approaching from the right, unless a "stop" sign, stop line, "give way" sign or give way line applies to the driver of the approaching vehicle.

 

To summarise the position, therefore, we have the following situation where traffic lights are operating:

 

1.       Regulation 39 (1) apparently[1] requires a driver turning right to give way to an oncoming vehicle turning left using a slip lane.

2.       The written words of Regulation 45 exempt a driver turning right from the obligation to give way to an oncoming vehicle turning left using a slip lane but are silent as to the legal position.

 3.      The diagram in Regulation 45 clearly says that the driver turning right does not have to give way to an oncoming vehicle turning left using a slip lane.

4.       There is no requirement on the vehicle turning left using the slip lane to give way to anyone.

 

Fortunately, most slip lanes have a give way sign so that solves the problem.  There cannot be any legal debate about the meaning of a give way sign can there?

 

In the 1975 regulations, Regulation 402(9) was drafted in such a manner as to require a driver using a slip lane to give way to traffic if there was a give way sign erected on the slip lane.

 

The applicable regulation now is Regulation 52:

 

52 . Giving way at a give way sign or give way line at an intersection

(1) A driver at an intersection with a "give way" sign or give way line shall give way to a vehicle in, entering or approaching the intersection except —

(a) an oncoming vehicle turning right at the intersection, if a "stop" sign, stop line, "give way" sign or give way line applies to the driver of the oncoming vehicle;

(b) a vehicle turning left at the intersection using a slip lane; or

(c) a vehicle making a U turn.

Points: 3 Modified penalty: 3 PU

 

That regulation covers vehicles which the give way sign is facing.  A give way sign erected at an intersection does not face a driver using a slip lane unless there is a sign erected on the slip lane or (possibly) a give way line.  The only mention of a give way sign on a slip lane is sub regulation (3):

(3) On or after 1 March 2001, if a driver at an intersection is turning left using a slip lane with a "give way" sign or give way line, the driver shall give way to any pedestrian on the slip lane.

 

This requires the driver to give way to pedestrians but not vehicles.  There is no other text in the Road Traffic Code that I can find that actually requires a vehicle using a slip lane to give way to other vehicles using the carriageway it is entering. 

 

Interestingly, diagram ‘Example 3’ depicts a situation where a driver is turning right and an oncoming vehicle is turning left.  The driver turning right has a give way sign facing him but there is no give way sign or line facing the driver using the slip lane.  The caption above the diagram indicates, correctly, that the driver turning right does not have to give way to the driver using the slip lane because that is clearly the case by virtue of Regulation 52(1)(b).  However, underneath the diagram is a caption which states that the vehicle using the slip lane must give way to the vehicle turning right.  I take this as an indication of what Regulation 52 was supposed to say but does not say.

 

If an accident were to occur under these circumstances and a decision taken to prosecute the driver using the slip lane, I cannot imagine how a charge could be successfully drafted.  I have never seen a charge of ‘failing to give way contrary to a diagram in regulation …’ and the driver using the slip lane has not contravened any of the text in that Regulation.

 

Regulation 52 requires a driver using a slip lane where there is a give way sign erected to give way to pedestrians (Regulation 52(3)) but not vehicles.

 

If I am wrong in the above analysis and the driver using the slip lane does have to give way then the position is reversed if the traffic lights are not working - Regulation 46(3)(c) – and the vehicle turning right has to give way to the vehicle using the slip lane.

 

The problems that exist with Regulation 52 are also present in Regulation 50 – stop signs – mutatis mutandis.

 

Regulation 55(4) sets out what I believe to be the intention at all intersections where a slip lane exists but Regulation 55(1) limits its application to intersections where there is no control.  Commendably, Regulation 55 is quite clear on the give way rules for vehicles.

 

Sub regulations 55(5) and 55(6) present another enigma.  They read as follows:  

(5) If a driver at a T–intersection is turning from the continuing road into the terminating road using a slip lane, the driver shall give way to —

(a) any vehicle approaching from the right; and

(b) any pedestrian on the slip lane.

Points: 3 Modified penalty: 3 PU

(6) If a driver at a T–intersection is turning right from the continuing road into the terminating road, the driver shall give way to —

(a) any oncoming vehicle that is travelling through the intersection on the continuing road or turning left at the intersection; and

(b) any pedestrian on the terminating road at or near the intersection.

Points: 3 Modified penalty: 3 PU

 

Quite obviously, if a vehicle is turning left from the continuing road into the terminating road there can be no vehicle approaching from the right unless it is argued that an oncoming vehicle making a right turn is ‘approaching from the right’.  In all other places in the Code the vehicle turning right is referred to as ‘an oncoming vehicle turning right’ or similar eg Regulation 55(4).  Nevertheless, since a terminating road by definition terminates and there can be no road on the right, ‘any vehicle approaching from the right’ must refer to oncoming vehicles turning right.  However, Regulation 56(6) requires the oncoming vehicle to give way to the subject vehicle because it does not exempt vehicles turning left using a slip lane.  In other words both vehicles must give way to each other and that is quite untenable. 

Turning Vehicles Slip Lanes and Pedestrians

If, contrary to what I have written about Regulation 39, it is permissible to draw a proscriptive inference from a limited permissive rule, Regulation 39 (1) (b) (i) requires a driver turning right or turning left not to ‘conflict or interfere with pedestrians crossing the roadway’.  I interpret this rather quaint verbiage as meaning that the driver must give way to pedestrians.  However, the pedestrians the driver must give way to are not limited to those crossing the carriageway he is turning into and includes the carriageway from which he enters the intersection.  I have no doubt that this result was not intended but it is what the Regulation says if in fact Regulation 39 (1) has anything to say at all.

 

Nevertheless the rule is repeated in Regulation 45.  Regulation 45 (3) reads as follows:

A driver turning to the right or left (except a driver turning left using a slip lane) at an intersection with traffic-control signals shall give way to all pedestrians. (My emphasis).

 

Example 1 depicts a vehicle giving way to a pedestrian who is crossing the carriageway into which the driver is turning left.  Nevertheless, the text is quite specific and it means all pedestrians and not just pedestrians on the carriageway into which the vehicle is turning.  If this is the rule that was intended it is fraught with danger but it is not my place to argue.  If, however, the intention was to require vehicles to give way to pedestrians on the carriageway into which the vehicle is turning then the regulation does not reflect the intention of the legislators.

 

Regulation 50 deals with intersections controlled by stop signs.  Sub regulation (4) requires a driver to ‘give way to any pedestrian at or near the intersection on the carriageway, or part of the carriageway the driver is entering.’ (The emphasis is mine).  In other words, where there are traffic lights, a turning vehicle has to give way to pedestrians on the approaching carriageway but, where there is a stop sign, requiring the vehicle to stop in any event, the driver is not obliged to give way to pedestrians on the approaching carriageway.  I do not believe this anomaly was the intention of the legislators.

 

Sub regulation 50 requires a driver turning left on a slip lane with a stop sign or line to give way to pedestrians on the slip lane.  It is worth noting that this sub regulation of itself only applies if the sign or line applies to the vehicles using the slip lane but not otherwise.  So if the intersection is controlled by a stop sign but the slip lane is uncontrolled the driver is not obliged to give way to pedestrians under this rule.

 

Regulation 52 creates an identical rule to that of Regulation 50 except that it refers to give way signs instead of stop signs.

 

Regulation 55 sets out the obligations to give way at intersections that are not controlled by lights or signs and specifically does not apply to those intersections and are so controlled.  Regulation 55 (3) (b) requires a turning driver to give way to give way to pedestrians ‘on the carriageway the driver is entering’ but it is silent about pedestrians on the approaching carriageway.  Sub regulation (5) requires drivers turning left using a slip lane to give way to pedestrians.

 

The situation can be summarised as follows.

 

Traffic Lights

If an intersection is controlled by traffic lights and a vehicle is turning left (no slip lane) or right the driver must give way to pedestrians on the approaching carriageway as well as pedestrians on the carriageway being entered.

 

If the vehicle is turning left at an intersection controlled by traffic lights using a slip lane which does not have any signs erected applying to the slip lane, there is no obligation to give way to pedestrians.  Regulation 55 (5) suggests otherwise but Regulation 55 (1) nullifies that effect.

 

If there is a stop sign erected for traffic using the slip lane, there is still no obligation on the driver to give way to pedestrians, the effect of Sub regulation 50 (5) being nullified by Sub regulation 50 (1).

 

If there is a give way sign erected for traffic using the slip lane, sub regulation 52 (3) creates an obligation to give way to pedestrians because there is no nullifying earlier subsection similar to Sub regulation 50 (1) or 55 (1).

 

Stop Signs

If an intersection is controlled by a stop sign and a vehicle is turning left (no slip lane) or right the driver must give way to pedestrians on the carriageway he is entering but not pedestrians on the approaching carriageway.

 

If the vehicle is turning left at an intersection controlled by a stop sign using a slip lane that is not itself controlled by a stop sign, there is no obligation to give way to pedestrians but if there is a stop sign applying to the slip lane then the driver must give way to pedestrians.

 

Give Way Signs

If an intersection is controlled by give way signs and a vehicle is turning left (no slip lane) or right the driver must give way to pedestrians on the carriageway he is entering but not pedestrians on the approaching carriageway.

 

If the vehicle is turning left at an intersection controlled by a give way sign using a slip lane that is not controlled by a give way sign, there is no obligation to give way to pedestrians but if there is a give way sign or line applying to the slip lane then the driver must give way to pedestrians.

 

Uncontrolled Intersections

If an intersection is uncontrolled and a vehicle is turning left (no slip lane) or right the driver must give way to pedestrians on the carriageway he is entering but not pedestrians on the approaching carriageway.

 

If a driver in turning left using a slip lane on an uncontrolled intersection the driver must always give way to pedestrians.

 

Regulation 56 deals with uncontrolled T-intersections and sets out a sensible position under which all turning traffic must give way to pedestrians on the carriageway being enter and also to pedestrians on slip lanes.  Why Sub regulation 56 (2) creates a rule for traffic turning either way from the terminating road but creating an exception for traffic using a slip lane, and then sub regulation 56 (3) creates a verbatim identical rule for the exception is beyond me.  It is indicative of the abysmal standard of drafting of these regulations.

 

Conclusion

The give way rules set out in the current Road Traffic Code are almost incomprehensible and so complex that nobody can be expected to understand them all.  The likely reason is that the drafting of these regulations is so awful that they lack anything resembling acceptable precision and probably do not reflect the intentions of the legislators.  The fact that they were passed at all reflects poorly on those who are entrusted to make and pass laws.

Sources:                         

This paper was compiled using information from any or all of the following sources and no others (unless explicitly stated);

 

The Road Traffic Code 2000 and amendments current until 10 November, 2003.

 

The Road Traffic Code 1975 reprinted as at 23 September 1997.

 

Drive Safe: A Handbook for Western Australian Road Users” Department for Planning and Infrastructure, published by the Road Safety Council of Western Australia, Revised Edition 1 December 2001.

 

How to Pass Your Driving Assessment:  A Candidate’s Guide to the Practical Driving Assessment” Transport, published by The Road Safety Council of Western Australia 1 September 2001.

 



[1] Regulation 39 is the epitome of bad drafting.  In our system of government anyone may do anything which is not proscribed by a rule.  If an act or a number of acts are proscribed then there may be a subsequent permissive rule enabling certain of the proscribed acts to be performed notwithstanding the initial proscription.  Further rules may be made proscribing one or more of the acts rendered permissible by the second rule and so on.  A rule which is made permitting acts to be done which have not been proscribed has no work to do; it is otiose.

Regulation 39 does not proscribe anything.  It simply purports to permit acts which are not proscribed and hence the conditions it sets out for that permission are irrelevant.  There is no rule of interpretation as far as I know that specifically allowing a particular act under specified conditions ipso facto implicitly proscribes those acts under any other conditions.

Regulation 39 (2) is neither permissive nor proscriptive.  It is, however, informative and could be used in civil actions.